Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. If we have additional time later, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Again, there was one objection, one objection in this entire body, to what I believe would be the overwhelming will of this body, which is to simply divide this question, because there are fundamentally two issues before us. This bill, H.R. 273, introduced 3 weeks ago, was not seen or heard in any committee of jurisdiction of the House, rushed through the Rules Committee under a closed rule to the floor of the House, and yet despite the fact that this bill failed to undergo any appropriate committee of jurisdiction review process, here it is in the House with limited debate at a time when we are edging closer and closer to the spending cliff that our country faces in 2 weeks, which this bill does nothing about. I know that many of us in this body, myself included, have been tireless advocates for supporting efforts to lower our deficit and balance our budget through a balanced approach. But as Republicans on the Rules Committee acknowledged last night, including Congressman Bishop, this particular bill would do nothing to solve our Federal debt, as it does not even change the spending caps agreed to in the Budget Control Act. What it does instead is include two completely unrelated measures. When you consider that the House Republicans have here coupled a Federal employee pay freeze with a freeze on Members of Congress' salary, it leaves the suspicion that is being speculated on by many outside this Chamber that this might, this just might be being done for political purposes and posturing. And one wonders why this institution is held in such low esteem by so many members of the public. It is precisely this kind of political trick. Let there be no disagreement: This body, since I've joined this body, has never given Members of Congress a pay raise. It simply hasn't. This has largely been an uncontroversial measure. When times are tough economically, Members of Congress should absolutely be the first in line to say, Look, we're not going to take a pay increase. And, in fact, Members of Congress have already foregone their pay increase through October of this year. So let that come up through the appropriations process, as it is traditionally done. I'm confident this body will act with regard to Member pay. But let us not tie it up with this issue of whether all Federal employees at all different wage levels should have any raise at all this year or not. Now, an amendment was brought forth yesterday by Congressman Bera of California and Congressman Connolly of Virginia, that divided the bill, just as we tried to do today. And by overwhelming majority, 400 some to 1, we did not do, because it was unanimous consent that was required. Unfortunately, the idea was shut down by the Rules Committee. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. POLIS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry as to how much time remains.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, why are we debating a bill that had to bypass regular order to rush to the floor in February when there's already a moratorium on the increase of pay for Members of Congress, and we should be debating spending, eliminating the deficit, the sequestration? With 6 legislative days remaining before that fiscal cliff, here we are instead discussing something with regards to Member pay that doesn't even occur until October, and that which has been the tradition of this body for the last 4 years--not to allow Members of Congress a raise--and conflated it with a separate issue with regard to the proper compensation level so that our Federal employees and Federal agencies can compete in the marketplace with private employers and attract the talent they need to succeed. This rule and this bill suffer from the stench of politicization, and the House should divide these two issues. Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to allow for consideration of amendment 4, the Bera-Connolly amendment, with 10 minutes of debate on each side.

Mr. POLIS. Excellent. Well, I hope that no one objects. Again, but for three votes cast in the Rules Committee by a 7-4 vote, and but for one solitary objection out of 435 Members of this House of Representatives, we would have divided the question and this body would have avoided being dragged into yet another political game that continues to jeopardize the standing of this body among the American people. It's clear that each of these issues deserves a separate discussion and a vote. With regard to Federal employee pay, let it come through regular order. Let the committees of jurisdiction debate how the issue is handled, and let it be placed within the context of balancing our budget and an overall budget solution to the automatic cuts that are far more severe than a Member pay freeze and may include unpaid furloughs and other extreme measures within a couple of weeks instead of engaging in stale political gamesmanship. Let's reduce our debt and deficit and avert the impending sequester. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. The way to divide them is precisely the Bera-Connolly amendment that was brought to our committee yesterday. On a functional level that does divide it.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, it's common sense to most Americans. We have upwards of 10, 12, 14 million people here illegally in this country. Many of them are members of our communities, many of their kids are Americans, go to school with their fellow Americans or on the football team or cheerleaders, are productive in every way. And yet every day our government through its current policies tears families apart; absolute heartbreaking tragedies where a mother is torn from her American daughter, placed in detention, frequently kicked out of this country at a cost to taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars, all over a broken taillight. Now it's important to educate people about the difference. We do have a group of people that are in detention that are called criminal aliens. These are people who are here illegally and committed crimes. It could be robbery. Maybe they're in a gang or dealing drugs. There's no disagreement among liberals and conservatives and people of all ilks that, of course, there needs to be detentions where appropriate and where there are criminal penalties in place and, of course, there should be expulsions from the country in that regard. In fact, many of us argue that by sweeping up many of the people whose only violation is a civil violation, who otherwise have been following our laws, in that sweep we are actually limiting our enforcement ability to go after real criminals who are causing harm in our community. That happens in two ways. One, through the limited law enforcement resources. When we divert those resources to taking mothers away from daughters, fathers away from sons who are productive members of society, when we divert the resources to that, it means they're going off of some other beat. It means they're going off of keeping our streets safe. It means they're going away from looking at white collar crime and other areas that need to be investigated in these fiscally restrained times with limited budgets. The second reason is it builds an atmosphere of distrust in our immigrant communities. How much unreported crime occurs because, in many cases, the victims of those crimes could be spouses that are abused, it could be people that are robbed or ripped off by unscrupulous scam artists and are frequently afraid to report that crime because they are afraid that the very same agency that they're supposed to trust to report that crime to could in fact be in league with another government agency that wants to deport them. And that's the problem with 287(g) and some of the other information-sharing protocols. For community policing to work, it's critical to have the trust and support of the community. And by the way, if these criminals go unprosecuted in our community and unpenalized for taking advantage of somebody, and that is not being reported, their next victim very well could be an American. Their next victim very well could be your family. It could be my family. And that's why we all have an interest in community policing, in law enforcement, as well as public health, to make sure that people are inoculated and treated early for diseases, regardless of their status. Now the solution is not to have this large population here illegally. Whenever we're talking about this enforcement, it's tough. There's no right answer. The right answer is comprehensive immigration reform. Let's find a way where the people that we need here to have critical jobs in our economy, that have families, that are in our community, that have kids that are American and going to school and doing well every day, have a way and paperwork to show that they can be here. Now that doesn't mean in comprehensive immigration reform that anybody gets citizenship. And I want to be clear about this, because frequently this false specter of somehow granting citizenship to 11 million people is raised. Comprehensive immigration reform in any version doesn't give citizenship to anybody. Not one person, not a thousand people, not a million people. Zero people. In fact, under all the versions that are being talked about of comprehensive immigration reform, anybody who's here illegally would have to get right with the law and would go to the back of the line with regard to applying for citizenship some day, if they're eligible. To be eligible, they'll have to follow the laws of our country for many years. They'll have to learn English. They'll have to take a test. Yes, some day it's possible that some immigrants will become citizens. It's also possible and likely that many will choose never to. They might work here for a number of years and return to another country. And that's fine. But it's critical that there is at least the ability to get right with the law. It's very frustrating when people say, Why don't they get in line today? Because it's a nonexistent line. Comprehensive immigration reform will create the line that people will then get into and create an immigration system that is in touch with reality in this country, in touch with a pro-growth agenda, in touch with an agenda that will make our country prosperous, that will conform our treatment of our neighbors to our values as Americans, the same values that extended a welcome to my ancestors and yours when they came to these shores and helped their, in my case, grandchildren and great grandchildren serve in this great body. So, too, we need to assure that our values are represented in our immigration system. And whether one is on the left or the right, it is clear that today's disaster of an immigration system is not reflective of our value as Americans--our value as Americans not to tear families apart, our values as Americans to ensure that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can get ahead in this country. You can succeed in this country. The value of encouraging civic participation is absolutely critical. So this is a unique opportunity, a unique moment. It's a bipartisan approach, as it has to be. This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. Immigration reform is an American issue, as it always has been a Nation of immigrants, a Nation of laws. And we can conform those two together so that we can fulfill our destiny in a way that honors the rule of law and honors the role of immigrants in creating our great country.

Mr. POLIS. Another thing that's important for Americans to understand about how 11 million people got here without paperwork and how this continues to occur is that more than half of the population that lives and works here illegally didn't sneak across a border. They came here legally. They came here as a tourist, they came with a visa. They stayed illegally and worked illegally. So, again, even if you had 100 percent security at the border--and, by the way, that's certainly a valid goal--but you're never going to have 100 percent. But even if you had 100 percent, you would still have a large flow of people to this country illegally because it's not that hard to get a tourism visa, to get a student visa, to get some other type of documentation for travel that allows you to be here for a month or 3 months and then to outstay that and work here illegally. So no matter what you do on the border--and, by the way, I think absolutely as part of comprehensive immigration reform there will be more border security--but no matter what you do on the border, you don't address the issue without having a comprehensive approach that deals with those already here, that deals with the immigration laws going forward so we don't wind up in this same situation again in 10 or 20 years, to make sure that our immigration laws reflect the real needs of our country, the needs of the private sector, the needs of the workforce in terms of making sure we have enough people in the service industry. Whether it's to pick crops in the field, whether it's to staff our high-tech companies with programmers, we need to have an America-centric approach to immigration. And while border enforcement can certainly be a part of that, no matter how much you have, it doesn't even come close to addressing the issue of immigration in this country. And that's why, as the President indicated in his speech and in his call, as others from both sides of the aisle have indicated, it's critical for America to take on the issue of immigration reform and pass a comprehensive solution.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to recognize Mr. Peter Runyon of Edwards, Colorado. Peter has just stepped down as a two-term county commissioner for the great county of Eagle, Colorado. Being a commissioner in one of the country's premier resort communities has its challenges, but Peter approached the job with integrity and passion. He served his citizens with a steadfast commitment to making the place they call home a better place in which to live and work. Peter's concerns about community growth and sustainability were the hallmark of his tenure and many important things resulted from his labors. His pursuit of smart growth, collaborative governing, transportation planning and open space have resulted in important changes in land use regulations, intergovernmental cooperation and a very successful voter- approved open space program, to name a few. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Peter Runyon on behalf of the residents of the 2nd Congressional District and myself. His contributions to Eagle County will remain his legacy for many years to come.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I want to again begin by acknowledging the long service of our chair in the House. This could very well be the last time we have the opportunity to debate here on the House floor, and I certainly wish him well. I also want to express my gratitude to the great patriotism of my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, and particularly those in their lame-duck period who have chosen to stay around and work right up to the final hour of their contract with the American people--in many cases without an office, in many cases without a home. We see them roaming the halls here of the Capitol. I personally, regardless of how they come down on this particular issue, applaud their patriotism in fulfilling the will of their voters for the 112th Congress. What we have before us, and I think Members on both sides agree, certainly has some good aspects and some aspects that need to be approved. The question is on what side is there more weight. I think it's important to talk about what this bill does and what it doesn't do. First, briefly, what it doesn't do. My own Senator from Colorado, Michael Bennet, was one of the small group of Senators who voted against this because he, like myself, is an advocate of a comprehensive budget solution: restoring fiscal integrity to our country along the parameters of what the supercommittee attempted but failed to accomplish, along the parameters of what the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Gang of Eight have attempted to accomplish, which we know could only be accomplished in a bipartisan manner but is so important to the future of our country to balance the budget and restore the fiscal integrity. This bill is not that bill. However, what this bill does is it ensures that the American people will not have the largest tax increase in the history of our country tomorrow: $2,000 a year out of the pocket of families making $80,000 a year; almost $4,000 a year out of the pocket of families making $150,000 a year. What does that mean to families? It might be the money that helps them stay above water on their mortgage. It might be the money that allows their child to attend college. Beyond the ramifications at the family level, there's the aggregate effect across our economy. When families don't have that money, they're not able to spend that money to buy products, buy products that need to be produced, have jobs in America and create jobs. I think we need to make sure that we don't raise taxes on the American people. The best way to do that is by supporting this bill. Anybody opposing this bill is supporting the largest tax increase in the history of the country. I call upon my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to remove this tax burden from the middle class and ensure that taxes don't go up tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I express my support of Computer Science Education Week, which occurs this week to celebrate the teaching and learning of computer science in our public schools. The week highlights activities and advocacy to elevate computer science education for students at all levels. Computer science is central to our Nation's global economic competitiveness. Half of the estimated 9.2 million STEM jobs that will be created by the year 2020 will be in computing. Major U.S. companies--Microsoft, Oracle and others--have such jobs available now but can't fill them because our schools aren't offering them. Despite this employment need, public schools in two-thirds of the states treat computer science as an elective and only 9 states require computer science for high school graduation. Meanwhile, very few states have computer science teacher certification and professional development, and public schools lack coherent computer science standards and assessments. My bill, the Computer Science Education Act (H.R. 3014) would address these problems through supports to states, local school districts and higher education. So I urge you to cosponsor this bill, while joining advocates and businesses across the country in honoring Computer Science Education Week and supporting a concrete effort to increase American jobs.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the underlying bill, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. It is important to talk about, in consideration of this rule and this bill, what it is and what it isn't. Here we are with a looming fiscal cliff, and yet Congress has allowed no issue to fester longer than immigration. Whether one is on the left or the right or in the middle, I'm sure my colleague from Florida would agree that whatever we're doing now in immigration is not working very well. We have over 10 million people here illegally. There is rampant violation of the law. There is lackluster enforcement. Families are torn apart. What's before us, regardless of the merits, which we'll get into in a moment, clearly does not address the problems in our immigration system. Whether this bill becomes law or not, our immigration system will continue to have problems, and there will continue to be over 10 million people here in violation of the law, many working illegally, in some cases taking jobs away from American citizens. So instead of a solution, we have a bill before us that asks us to weigh two goals of our immigration policy in many ways against one another. There might very well be room for a noncontroversial immigration bill that catches up and includes some of the less controversial provisions, including a STEM program, and there could very well be room for that short of comprehensive immigration reform. I support and am a cosponsor of the IDEA Act, which does that. I tried to amend into this bill and allow for the consideration of this body yesterday in the Rules Committee a bill that I have for the permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 visa program, a program that is not very controversial and has strong support from both sides but suffers from temporary reauthorizations. This is a critical program for creating jobs for Americans because it allows companies to attract capital from investors, and those investors are able to be part of those companies and grow those companies, creating jobs for Americans. This program could be much more successful if the Rules Committee yesterday had, on a party-line vote, not allowed that amendment to come to the floor. I'm confident that that amendment would have passed with near universal support, and certainly strong support from both sides. Instead of trying to catch and move forward on some of the less controversial aspects of immigration which in no way, shape, or form, again, prevent the need for a comprehensive solution, but instead of even moving forward on the noncontroversial aspects, we have a bill before us that is controversial because it weighs two important goals of immigration against one another. So rather than create a STEM Visa program as the IDEA Act does, as the STAPLE Act, which I'm a cosponsor of with my colleague Congressman Flake from Arizona who has introduced it in past sessions, rather than do that, it asks the question of this body: Would we rather have a Diversity Visa concept or would we rather have a STEM Visa concept? In reality, I think many in this body would agree that both are desirable. Diversity Visas essentially go to immigrants that are from countries other than the main countries that send us immigrants. What are the main countries that send us immigrants? Obviously, Mexico. In addition to that, there are China, Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, and several others. We have a lot of immigrants from Mexico and these other countries. What the Diversity Visa says is, shouldn't we also give opportunities to some residents of countries, like the Ukraine or Albania or Ethiopia, and have them also come so that they're not just crowded out by applicants from Mexico, India, and China? If we don't have a Diversity Visa, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. Now, that's okay-- it's certainly not the end of the world--but there is value in having immigrants from across the world. There is value in having Ukrainians come to this country. There is value in having Ethiopians. In addition, there is value in people having diverse social backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds coming to this country to facilitate assimilation into this country and integration into this country. So I think that it was well thought out in having a concept whereby people who don't happen to be from Mexico, India, China or the other main countries have a way of getting here. It's a good program. So, too, having a STEM visa program is absolutely critical as it is important to our country to make sure that we can retain the talent that we attract to our universities. There is something that is so frustrating to me as an American and to many of our constituents, and I talk about it frequently back home with my representing both of our major State universities in Colorado as well as private universities in my district: Here we are educating people from across the world, and if you look at our engineering grad schools, we see a high number of foreign nationals on student visas. We are educating computer programmers and aerospace engineers with the skills they need to compete in a 21st- century workforce. Upon giving them their master's degrees or Ph.D.s, we tell them, do you know what, you're not allowed to work here in this country. You have to move back to another country and compete against us. Guess what? The jobs follow them. In the digital age, employers care less where an employee is based. They care where the talent is. If the best computer programmer is only available for hire or if an aerospace engineer is only available for hire in India or in Mexico or in the U.K., the companies will--and increasingly are--setting up divisions in those countries to hire them rather than hiring here. So the lack of having a STEM job pathway is actively destroying American jobs every day. Here we are as a body being asked to say under a closed rule, Is it more important to have immigrants from countries other than Mexico, India, and China? Is it more important to have some Ukrainians and Ethiopians and Albanians? I use those examples because those are some of the leading countries that have used the Diversity Visa, but there are a broad number of countries that do. Is that something that's important? How does its importance compare to making sure that those we train here are able to deploy their talents here and create jobs in America rather than overseas? Again, it's a very frustrating proposition in the way the Republicans have chosen to bring this to the floor: a, it obviously doesn't address the underlying issues of our immigration crisis in this country. It doesn't change the fact that there are 10 million people here illegally, and it doesn't prevent people from coming here illegally; b, it asks us to choose between two valuable programs. Rather than simply passing the Staples Act, rather than passing the IDEA Act, it says that we're going to have to choose as a country to benefit either from STEM graduates or from people from other countries other than Mexico, India, and China. It's a false dilemma. There were amendments that were offered by Zoe Lofgren that would have addressed that which were turned down by the Rules Committee. Again, there were strong bipartisan concepts like EB-5 permanent authorization that I offered, put forward, that were also shut down in committee. In addition, at a time of budget deficits and the looming fiscal crisis, this bill would increase the budget deficit by over $1 billion over the next 5 years; and that is unpaid for as well. There are many ways that immigration can be looked at to reduce our budget deficit, and there are many concepts of comprehensive immigration reform either through fees paid by those who violate the law, penalties paid. Increased taxes going forward for those who would have to pay taxes under immigration reform would actually reduce our deficit; but here we are with a solitary idea around immigration that forces all Members of this body to weigh two valuable programs against one another, and at the same time it costs taxpayers over $1 billion over the next 5 years. It's a choice that Congress shouldn't face. There are also very legitimate concerns that, not only does this bill weigh two valuable programs and asks us to choose, but, in effect, it's a backdoor way to reduce the number of legal immigrants. There should be no hesitation in saying that, by reducing the number of legal immigrants, we will increase the number of illegal immigrants. This bill will likely increase the number of illegal immigrants to this country because the math doesn't work. Now, why doesn't the math work? The bill purports to offset 55,000 STEM green cards by eliminating 55,000 green cards in the Diversity program. Now, if that were a one-on-one trade, that would be the same net number of immigrants. The issue is, as to our institutions of higher education that give master's degrees and Ph.D.s in the eligible areas to students on foreign visas, there are not 55,000 foreign students who receive them every year. There were, in fact, 29,904 last year, so about 30,000. There is a backlog so that, after several years, the 55,000 would no longer be able to be met; but then after 3 or 4 years and after the backlog was met, this would likely lead to a reduction in legal immigration and to an increase in illegal immigration because only 29,000 foreign nationals are matriculating with master's and Ph.D.s in the included areas; yet 55,000 visas would be removed from the program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and people from countries that are not Mexico, India, China, and the other 12 from coming to this country legally. So I have very sincere concerns that, rather than addressing the issue of illegal immigration, this bill because of the math and because of the numbers that have been brought to my attention could actually increase illegal immigration by reducing legal immigration, which is the last thing that we need to do with regard to solving in a bipartisan way our immigration crisis. As a former Internet entrepreneur myself and in representing our universities, I know firsthand about the critical need to pass a STEM visa program. Not only would it create more high-paying, high-tech jobs for Americans, but it would produce tax revenues. It would make our country stronger and our economy stronger. Yet rather than take up the IDEA Act or the Staples Act, we're here with a backdoor attempt by the Republicans to increase the number of illegal immigrants in our country, which I would argue is not the right direction for immigration reform. Immigration reform should be predicated around solving the crisis of illegal immigration. Rather than increasing the number of illegal immigrants from 10 million to 12 million to 14 million, we need to find a way to reduce that number to as close to zero as is feasible, and that should be the goal of immigration reform. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to a leader on immigration issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Curson), a new Member of our body.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining speakers he's expecting.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, seeing as I am the last speaker from my side, I yield myself the balance of my time. As articulated by the gentleman from Oregon, this bill presents a difficult decision for Members of this body, and I certainly have great respect for people on both sides of the issue. I want to go over, again, some of the pros and cons. The program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and Albanians to come in to make sure that a disproportionate number of our immigrants are not just from a small number of countries is important. Absent that, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. So again, if this bill passes, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from the major countries that send people here. Now, it's not the end of the world, but there's added value in having people from all corners of the world come here to become part of our great country and, in many cases, this is the only way that people from Nepal or Albania or Ethiopia have a shot at coming to this country and succeeding. We also need people in this country across all different skill levels in our labor market. And whether that labor includes toiling in the field or toiling in downtown buildings at night or programming computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of our economy--yes, in STEM, but not just in STEM. So we are asked to choose, asked to choose between people with graduate degrees whom we want to keep here in science, technology, engineering, and math. In many cases, if they're not allowed to stay, they will have to return to other countries, and the jobs will follow them, costing our country jobs. Choose between them and allowing people here from countries other than Mexico, India, and China, some of whom are high-skilled, some of whom are low-skilled, a diverse group across the board. Looking back at many of our own forebears, certainly mine, my family came to this country in the late 19th century, and early 20th century, 1890s, 1905. They didn't have master's degrees. They didn't have Ph.D.s. They didn't have college degrees. And that's the case for many of our forebears. Here today their great-grandson sits as a Member of Congress, and had a program not existed whereby they could arrive at Ellis Island and be here, I wouldn't be here today. Now, my father has a Ph.D., but that's the legacy of his hard-working immigrant grandparents that came to this country without a college degree and, in many cases, without something that's the equivalent of even a high school degree today. To work hard, to live the American Dream, and for their descendents, to be able to serve in this august body. So it's a cause for reflection. Both are important. And again, the closed process of the bill doesn't allow for a discussion of the IDEA Act or the STAPLE Act, which would simply create a new STEM immigrant visa program. My other concern with this bill, as I mentioned, is that it would increase the number of illegal immigrants here in this country. Simply by the way that the math works, the number of STEM graduates is lower than the number of STEM visas that are available each year. Now, it would be one thing if that was allowed to trickle down to other categories, or, for instance, the overflow was allowed to be used for diversity visas. There might be room for compromise. But instead, those excess visas disappear. So after the backlog of three or 4 years is dealt with, these 55,000 visas that are being taken away from Albania and the Ukraine and Ethiopia and Africa and Asia, the back of those 55,000 visas will only result in 20,000 or so net immigrants. Now 29,000 graduates graduating from institutions of higher education. Now, keep in mind, not everybody wants to stay here. As attractive as our country is, some people do want to learn here and go back to their other countries, and that's certainly fine as well. But many will want to stay here. But in losing some of those visas, again, we are only increasing the immigration problem, the illegal immigration problem, and moving in the opposite direction of addressing immigration in this country. There is little to be proud of with regard to the current state of affairs in immigration. It's very different than when my great-grandparents came here and got off at Ellis Island and registered and, albeit with a misspelled name, were able to go to work the next day. It's becoming harder and harder. The absence of a legal way of immigrating that is in touch with our labor market in this country, the lack of having an operative immigration system has led to over 10 million people being here illegally, working illegally, as my colleague from Oregon said, in many cases, integrated into our communities. Many of them have American children, are parents of American kids, and yet, without any way, currently, of getting right with the law. What we need to do in immigration reform is require that people who are here illegally get right with the law, rather than prevent them from getting right with the law, which is what we do currently. So, again, while STEM immigration is very important, my colleagues are being asked, in a closed process, to weigh that with the issue of immigrants from countries like the Ukraine and Albania. At the same time, again, this bill will increase the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Perhaps increasing the number of illegal immigrants will redouble the efforts of this Congress to address this issue. But, given the enormous dimension of the problem already and the complete lack of consideration of any meaningful immigration bill by this Congress to solve a broken immigration system, I'm certainly not holding my breath. The zero-sum bill on the floor asks us to weigh one class of immigrants at the expense of another, in effect, trying to play politics and avoid solving our immigration crisis. I think it's time for a transparent and open debate. It's time for compromise. It's time to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, one that strengthens our economy, one that creates jobs for Americans, one that makes our Nation's immigration system more humane and makes it workable and enforceable. This bill, for all its merits, for all its problems, I think, we, both proponents and opponents can agree it falls short on that account of fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works. It has no additional enforcement provisions, no border security provisions. It provides no requirement for people who are here illegally to get right with the law. Rather, it does create an excellent program to keep high-tech graduates here. It destroys another valuable program to keep people from countries other than Mexico and India and China and the UK here. It likely will increase illegal immigration by 10 or 20,000 a year, and provides no solution. So a difficult decision for all Members of this body. And I'd like to think that Members on both sides, hopefully, would agree that we can do better. We need to do better. We've been called upon by the voters of this country to do better. And I encourage, whether it's in this Congress or the next Congress, to take up the difficult but critical issue of replacing our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, creates prosperity for America, helps reduce our budget deficit, is humane, is enforceable. No one said it would be easy, but that's what the people send us here to do. And regardless of the outcome of this particular bill, we are simply taking another week in avoiding addressing the real issues of the immigration crisis in this country. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which was a closed process and doesn't allow for consideration of even noncontroversial amendments such as my EB-5 amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved radio station, 102.7 FM KYGT, which turns eighteen on February 4, 2013. The station, which is fondly known as ``The Goat,'' started with an antique phonograph and a dream. Over the years, this humble station has transformed itself into the voice of Clear Creek and a local institution. This community owned radio station's mission is clear: ``Broadcast entertainment, news and information, both over the airwaves and via the Internet, to the residents of Clear Creek County, Colorado, and the world through an eclectic mix of programming.'' The Goat encourages creative expression and believes in the importance of community. The Goat is a commercial-free station that is funded by local business sponsors, fundraisers, and an intergovernmental agreement with all the towns in Clear Creek County. In addition to playing diverse music, the station encourages civic engagement and community building. There are live broadcasts of local high school athletic events, public service announcements about community events, and a dedicated line for the Sheriff's Department to take over the broadcast in case of an emergency. The Goat informs and educates its audience, as exemplified by founder and General Manager Greg Markle and Mark Cucinella's show, ``All Things Reconsidered.'' The Goat's dedicated staff is also a long-tenured staff. Gary and Doc have been rocking Clear County for almost 18 years with their show ``So Much Music, So Little Time.'' Many mountain residents have woken up to snowy mountain mornings with ``Mornings with Mozart'' (even though sometimes the show is played in the afternoon), put on their square dancing shoes during ``Texas Tunes,'' been constantly surprised by ``The Mystery Hour,'' and head-banged through Mikey and Jen Jen's metal show. This radio station epitomizes not only what a community radio station could be, but also what a community radio station should be. With a laid-back vibe, an inclusive attitude, and a fun-loving spirit, 102.7 FM consistently has entertained, informed, and supported the Clear Creek community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to 102.7 FM The Goat as it soon celebrates its 18th birthday.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition to call on Congress to renew the wind production tax credit. The wind production tax credit provides a small tax incentive to wind companies to produce clean domestic energy. This tax incentive promotes investment, creates jobs, and encourages deployment of wind energy. At the end of this year, the wind production tax credit expires unless Congress acts. This tax credit is essential to level the playing field for wind energy. For instance, the oil and gas industry gets around $40 billion in subsidies over 10 years. If we can eliminate oil and gas subsidies, let's do it. If not, we need to renew the wind production tax credit. The tax credit supports 5,000 jobs in Colorado and 75,000 jobs nationally. We cannot afford to lose these jobs. Both Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members agree we need to extend this commonsense tax credit. I urge my colleagues to work together to extend the wind production tax credit to protect and grow America's thriving wind industry.